ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 Mar 07 5:07 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2606780

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
HORRY COUNTY CASE NO.: 2018-CP-26-06780

State of South Carolina on the relation of

Jimmy A. Richardson, II, Solicitor of the
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit,
ORDER FOR PERMANENT
PETITIONER, INJUNCTION
vs.

Joe Rideoutte, Jr.,

RESPONDENT.

This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Petitioner’s Verified Petition seeking a

permanent injunction restraining Respondent Joe Rideoutte, Jr. and his agents, servants,

subordinates, and employees from maintaining a nuisance within the State of South Carolina.

The basis for Petitioner’s Verified Petition was Respondent’s use of a boarding house

located at 407 5th Avenue North, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in Horry County (hereinafter the

“Boarding House”) as a public nuisance in violation of S.C. Code Ann. §§ 15-43-10 to 130.

On February 7, 2019, the Honorable Benjamin H. Culbertson granted Petitioner’s motion

for a temporary injunction and closed the Boarding House for one year.

On October 11, 2023, the Court held a merits hearing on Petitioner’s Verified Petition.

Present at the hearing was Petitioner, through his attorney James R. Battle, Esq., Respondent

Rideoutte and his attorney, William B. von Herrmann, Esq. The Petitioner presented live

testimony and documentation, and Respondent cross-examined Petitioner’s witnesses.

After duly considering the evidence and arguments presented by the Petitioner and

Respondent, the Court finds that Petitioner made a sufficient showing to obtain a permanent

1
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 Mar 07 5:07 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2606780
injunction against Respondent, and Respondent is hereby permanently enjoined from

maintaining a nuisance within the State of South Carolina.

PETITIONER’S PERMANENT INJUNCTION SHOWING

Petitioner presented evidence showing the Boarding House is located at 407 5th Avenue

North, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in Horry County, and Respondent is the real property

owner and business owner of the Boarding House.

I. Officer Parran Testimony

Officer Steph Parran with the Myrtle Beach Police Department testified that from January

2, 2018 to February 6, 2019 there were 5 drug overdoses, where the person was revived, at the

Boarding House, and a child living at the Boarding House tested positive for cocaine.

From February 7, 2019 to February 6, 2020, the Boarding House was closed through

Judge Culbertson’s temporary injunction. On February 7, 2020, the Boarding House reopened at

the expiration of the temporary injunction.

Officer Steph Parran testified that after being reopened and between June 24, 2020 and

July 28, 2020, there 4 drug overdoses, where two people were revived and two people died, at

the Boarding House.

Officer Parran also introduced documents comparing a breakdown of calls for service to

the Boarding House and a neighboring, similar property, the Blossom Inn, from January 2018 to

December 2018. During this time, the Boarding House had 224 calls, and the Blossom Inn had 5

calls.

II. Anthony Dale Deposition Transcript

2
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 Mar 07 5:07 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2606780
At the merits hearing, Petitioner met the requirements of Rule 804(b)(1), S.C. Rules of

Evidence, and the Court admitted the transcript of Anthony Dale’s Deposition taken on March

12, 2020.

Mr. Dale testified to the following:

Q. Okay. And did [Respondent Rideoutte] run the [Boarding House] as well?

A. He ran the [Boarding House] as well and he had people that was living there
that would take -- they would have control of the house while he wasn't there.

Q. Okay.

A. Like a manager, supervisor, something like that, a house manager. I don't

know what you would call them.

Q. Right. Like a property manager?

A. Yeah, property manager.

Q. Okay. Did you ever live at the [Boarding House]?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Okay. How long did you live at the [Boarding House]?

A. From June of 2018 until January 2019.

[Dale Depo., page 11, line 24 to page 12, line 16].

Q. Okay. Were illegal drugs sold at the [Boarding House]?

A. All day, every day…

Q. Okay. Tell me about how that worked, how the drugs were sold.

A. It was dispersed by whoever was living there that wanted to sell drugs. And
one of the property managers, his name was Reggie, you had to go through him to
even sell drugs there, or [Respondent Rideoutte]. [Respondent Rideoutte] would
bring most of the ice there and Reggie would disperse it for him.

[Id. at page 13, lines 11-24].

3
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 Mar 07 5:07 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2606780
A. I'm telling you, the [Boarding House] was like -- everybody came there off the
beach to get drugs, man, and that's what it was about, was selling drugs and
making money.

[Id. at page 21, lines 17-20].

Q. Okay. Did you witness any prostitution at the [Boarding House]?

A. All the time.

Q. Okay. Tell me how that worked.

A. They would come in and want some drugs, and Reggie would be like, you
know, if you ain't got no money, you know what it is. So they would go up to a
room or one of the rooms downstairs, the first room to the right. When you walk
in the door there's a little like hallway and then the first room to the right, that was
the trick room, they called it.

[Id. at page 21, line 15 to page 22, line 1].

III. George Paraschos Testimony

George Paraschos is the owner of Pizza Roma III, which is next door to the Boarding

House. The Court adopted Mr. Paraschos’s testimony from the Boarding House’s temporary

injunction hearing without objection.

Mr. Paraschos testified the people living at the Boarding House have negatively impacted

his business for a long time. There have been several fights in his parking lot causing customers

to leave. He testified to witnessing prostitution and drug transactions and to trash being left in the

parking lot. He testified he and his co-workers do not feel safe, and consequently, he closes

earlier due to concerns over the Boarding House.

Based on the totality of the evidence, Petitioner’s evidence showed the drug use,

prostitution, and breaches of the peace at the Boarding House, and how this activity negatively

affected the community.

4
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 Mar 07 5:07 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2606780
LAW/ANALYSIS

Under S.C. Code Ann. § 15-43-10:

A person who…establishes, continues, maintains, uses, owns, occupies, leases, or

releases any building…for the purposes of lewdness, assignation, prostitution,
repeated acts of unlawful possession or sale of controlled substances, or
continuous breach of the peace in this State is guilty of a nuisance;

“continuous breach of the peace” means a pattern of repeated acts or conduct

which either (1) directly disturbs the public peace or (2) disturbs the public peace
by inciting or tending to incite violence.

“Whenever a nuisance is kept, maintained or exists, as defined in [S.C. Code Ann. § 15-

43-10]…the solicitor…may maintain an action…to enjoin perpetually such nuisance, the person

conducting or maintaining the nuisance and the owner or agent of the building or ground upon

which the nuisance exists.” S.C. Code Ann. § 15-43-20,

“When an injunction has been granted it shall be binding on the defendant throughout the

State.” S.C. Code Ann. § 15-43-30

“[E]vidence of the general reputation of the place shall be competent for the purpose of

proving the existence of the nuisance.” S.C. Code Ann. § 15-43-40

Numerous cases from this and other jurisdictions, as well as treatises and common law

compilations, have clearly established what constitutes a public or common nuisance for

purposes of this and similar statutory schemes. In State v. Turner, 198 S.C. 487, ___, 18 S.E.2d

371, 373 (1942) (Turner I), in an appeal from a conviction for “maintaining a public nuisance, in

the keeping, management and operation of a disorderly house,” our Supreme Court reasoned a

place in “which idle, vicious, and dissolute persons are encouraged to assemble, and are

permitted to drink, swear, quarrel, fight and make loud and disturbing noises, and engage in lewd

and immoral conduct, to the disturbance and annoyance of the neighborhood” would be

considered a public nuisance because it “occurs in a public place, or where the public frequently

5
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 Mar 07 5:07 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2606780
congregate, or where members of the public are likely to come within the range of its influence.”

Id. at ___, 18 S.E.2d at 375. The Court held “whatever shocks the public morals and sense of

decency…[is] a public nuisance.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).

The Court further concluded:

If one maintains a place where people are allowed to frequent for immoral
purposes, such a place would be a common or public nuisance, because
it…affects the happiness, the tranquility and the morals of the community. And it
is not necessary that such a place for such purposes be conducted openly or
notoriously to constitute a nuisance.

Id. at ___, 18 S.E.2d at 376; see also State v. Turner, 198 S.C. 499, 18 S.E.2d 376 (1942)

(Turner II) (discussing other issues related to Turner’s conviction for maintaining a public

nuisance); see also S.C. Code Ann. § 15-43-80 (stating the existence of a nuisance may be

proven in a criminal proceeding, prior to bringing a civil action seeking to enjoin and abate the

nuisance); cf. Commonwealth v. D’Andrea, 71 Pa. D & C.2d 770, 774 (Pa. Com. Pl. 1974)

(finding a bar was a common nuisance because, on three occasions, it either sold alcohol to

intoxicated persons, sold alcohol on Sunday, sold alcohol at unlawful hours, permitted gambling

on the premises, permitted minors to frequent the premises, or permitted female entertainers to

contact and associate with patrons).

Based on the witnesses and documents produced, Petitioner showed to the satisfaction of

the Court that Respondent Rideoutte conducted and maintained the Boarding House for the

purposes of prostitution, repeated acts of unlawful possession or sale of controlled substances,

and continuous breaches of the peace. Therefore, Respondent Rideoutte conducted and

maintained a nuisance as defined under S.C. Code Ann. § 15-43-10 and shall be permanently

enjoined from maintaining a nuisance within the State of South Carolina under S.C. Code Ann. §

15-43-20.

6
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 Mar 07 5:07 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2606780
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, Petitioner’s requested relief is

hereby granted, and Petitioner is hereby granted an Order:

1) Permanently enjoining and restraining Respondent Rideoutte, and each of his agents,

servants, subordinates, and employees, from maintaining a nuisance within the State of South

Carolina.

2) Upon a violation of this Order, the Petitioner may bring a contempt proceeding against

Respondent Rideoutte pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 15-43-70.

ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE TO FOLLOW

7
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 Mar 07 5:07 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2606780
Horry Common Pleas

Case Caption: South Carolina State Of , plaintiff, et al VS Joe Rideoutte Jr

Case Number: 2018CP2606780

Type: Order/Permanent Injunction

So Ordered

s/ Kristi F. Curtis, Circuit Court Judge, No. 2762

Electronically signed on 2024-03-06 17:05:40 page 8 of 8